Speeding up U.S. natural gas exports was a good idea even before the crisis in Crimea, but it's an even better idea now. It's not as if U.S. exports are going to undermine Vladimir Putin's imperialistic designs in the short term. Ukraine would love to be less dependent on Russia for natural gas, but the export infrastructure in the U.S. for liquefied natural gas (LNG), particularly in ...

Well heck yea! We all want to get rid of any less-expensive energy advantage we have when it comes to manufacturing - who wanted those jobs anyway? And I sure don't mind paying higher costs for home heating when we can help the Europeans stiff the Russians, by golly!

Dave52 wrote:Well heck yea! We all want to get rid of any less-expensive energy advantage we have when it comes to manufacturing - who wanted those jobs anyway? And I sure don't mind paying higher costs for home heating when we can help the Europeans stiff the Russians, by golly!

Increases in gas sales and production will DWARF any unlikely increases in domestic prices. Of COURSE the U.S. benefits from selling to the highest bidder AND also benefits from the wealth creation. I'm helping it happen by investing in it. You should do the same.

Exports of natural gas are a way for gas producers to make money faster. US supplies are adequate for the time being, but they are not infinite. Massive exports of LNG simply will lead to rapid depletion of this resource, but the gas producers are not concerned with the US if they see a way to make quicker profits.

Interesting dilemma, the environmentalist can embrace fracking or deal with the very real possibility of their children dying in the next World War; especially given the potential for a Draft as planned for by no less than Jimmy Carter and his ideological descendant in the White House!

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." - Thomas Jefferson

Dave52 wrote:Well heck yea! We all want to get rid of any less-expensive energy advantage we have when it comes to manufacturing - who wanted those jobs anyway? And I sure don't mind paying higher costs for home heating when we can help the Europeans stiff the Russians, by golly!

Increases in gas sales and production will DWARF any unlikely increases in domestic prices. Of COURSE the U.S. benefits from selling to the highest bidder AND also benefits from the wealth creation. I'm helping it happen by investing in it. You should do the same.

Natural gas is a finite resource, just like oil. Building an infrastructure to send it offshore is myopic. Sure, some people will get rich in the short term, but 30 years from now when we run all of our power plants and heat all of our homes with NG, and the production rates plummet, all that money will be sucked away to whatever country can supply US with NG. Probably Russia.

Europe is a victim of its own decisions. They have plenty of their own natural gas. However due to frac'ing bans caused by extreme environmentalist propaganda, Russia still has a stangle hold on the majority of the European energy market. If Europe wants a solution to this old problem all they simply have to do is utilize its own resources and ignore all the misinformation and scare propaganda. Remember, Putin is an avid 'anti-frac'er'.

This article is important for Colorado as well. We have several areas in Colorado that would like to go down the same path as Europe and ban frac'ing (even though we have been frac'ing >90% of all wells in CO since 1970). The shale gas/oil revolution has allowed the US to become far less dependent on OPEC nations which has drastically strengthened and stablilized our economy.

Dave52 wrote:... Sure, some people will get rich in the short term, but 30 years from now when we run all of our power plants and heat all of our homes with NG, and the production rates plummet, all that money will be sucked away to whatever country can supply US with NG. Probably Russia.

I really like what you said here, "but 30 years from now when we run all of our power plants and heat all of our homes with NG." You are saying that hydrocarbons will continue to be the main source of energy for the Uniteed States in 30 years. I agree with you, but why do extreme environmentalists continue to say that we should ban oil and gas development in CO, PA, CA, TX, NY, IL, ect. and go completely with wind and solar when that is completely illogical?

Also, frac'ing and the oil and gas industry support literally hundreds of thousands of high-paying, highly technical jobs including engineers, geologists, geophysicists, petrophysicists, construction managers, field foremen, lawyers, land and title personel, accountants, administrators, ect. 110,000 of those high-paying jobs are right here in Colorado. And Colorado farmers and ranchers are making more money than they ever could have imagined due to the industry and the process of hyrdaulic fracturing.

I remember in high school back in the sixties and early seventies, teachers were telling us that we would run out of oil before the turn of the century. Well we are past that by more than a decade and we are still finding oil and gas. I am hearing that by several accounts we are good for another 200 years with a huge supply of gas and oil in this country that amounts to more than the total supply in the middle east. I dont know how much is there but I do know that good paying jobs are scarce and our nation's debt is 17T dollars. I also know that we dont have enough developed alternative resources to supply this country with energy. So...it is only a fool that does not use what he has available to make life better. We have oil and we have natural gas. Let's use it or go back the horse and buggy. Either way suits me fine, but what we are doing now is historically stupid.

What insanity. We need to be burning less fossil fuels, not more. The Post editorial staff seems to be unable to understand what the science means. Sad.

I for one think Al Gore and his global warming garbage is just that, garbage. However I am open to true science so if you would care to explain to us exactly what, "the science means," then I would be willing to listen. Here is a recent publication on climate sensitivity done by numerous ex-NASA scientists (they no longer have to play James Hansen's politcal games).

"...we would hope most members of Congress appreciate that fracking can be done safely, and that America's new energy bounty offers a huge opportunity to assist pro-Western governments abroad."

What nonsense. "Hope" is always a poor linchpin for a position.

Yes, fracking COULD be done MORE safely, but, like the nuclear industry, the fracking industry is blinded by margins. Funny how cheap natural gas becomes when, like coal, you externalize the damage, which takes its toll over decades on public health. Too bad many Americans can't look beyond their own noses and "editorial boards" have devolved into ignorance and "hope" for their positions.

Now it's rah-rah time for a failing industry -- newspapers, in this case the Post -- as they see the potential advertising revenue or just a chance to be pro-business without accounting for the details. And, of course, the easy solution: just cheer on whatever seems to be making money. Even if it costs all of us dearly in the long run.

Funny they didn't mention Sen. Rand Paul, who just suggested that we despoil our last vestiges of wild country here in our home, to create a dubious (and long-delayed) response to a short-term crisis in Ukraine. Great idea! Let's despoil our last wild places in pursuit of more fossil fuels, so some wet-behind-the-ears presidential wanna be can thump his chest.

The Post editorial board just thrust its head deep into the sand. Funny, that's where the sun don't shine.

Exporting LNG to Europe in the quantities needed is a bit of a pipe dream. For one the infrastructure isn't in place, and second the market conditions that exist now may not exist 6 to 10 years from now, Not nearly long enough to recoup the investment on infrastructure. Rand Paul suggested this the other day when he said we need to drill everywhere we can. For one, he is way ahead of the drilling game right now. There isn't enough equipment to even think about drilling enough LNG to supply Europe and it will take 3 to 6 years to get there. By that time Putin may have backed off and the need won't be there wich will make market conditions unpaletable. Betting on the agresssions by another nation in order to sell LNG is a bad bet and at best risky even if infrastructure was in place.

"... why do extreme environmentalists continue to say that we should ban oil and gas development in CO, PA, CA, TX, NY, IL, ect. and go completely with wind and solar when that is completely illogical?"

Ah, my friend, you are in need of information. Oil and gas drilling in Colorado is at an all-time high. "Environmental extremists" are the mainstream people who live on your street, merely asking that fracking be done in the least harmful way possible. It's not an either/or proposition. So, lay down your false straw man and address the facts that fracking emits huge amounts of methane into the atmosphere and that the slurry that comes out of the hole is loaded with carcinogens and that slurry is getting dumped or treated incompletely before being dumped into our waterways. Your children's and grandchildren's health, if not yours, is at stake.

I too wish the world was simpler. It just ain't so. The false polarization you display should be leavened by facts. Let's just tighten up the regs, at marginal cost, and not spend untold treasure down the road in treating cancer and air- and water-born contaminants. No one is saying "stop." We're saying, "just do it right the first time." We've seen this movie before. Why do you think the American nuclear industry is DOA? Because it cost us all trillions in taxes and subsidies and cleanups. All after the fact. Why not use a little adult foresight to do energy production in a responsible manner? We all pay in the end.

What insanity. We need to be burning less fossil fuels, not more. The Post editorial staff seems to be unable to understand what the science means. Sad.

Problem is the environmental extremists' method of doing that is to cut off the source of those fuels to create a shortage of them. It would be like cutting off farming to create a shortage of food in the name of fighting obesity.

As for "there's money to be made". A shortage of something causes its price to go up, so more money ends up in fewer hands.

“I'm not a dictator.” -- Barack Obama, March 2013“As a president, I can do whatever I want.” -- Barack Obama, February 2014

ButForGraceOfGodGoI wrote:I thought the whole drumbeat in favor of fracking was to wean the U.S. off of foreign fuel. Now we're going to ship our gas to other countries? What if we Americans need it?

Not trying to be condescending but you need to understand a thing or two about carbon products. Nothing that is drilled here belongs to the the US. Carbon products only fetch a royalty fee to our gov't. Beyond that it is traded as a commodity on the world market. You nor I have any control over what the oil companies do with their carbon product that they paid rights to access and sell.

I am constently amazed at the level of misunderstanding a good percentage of American people have about the carbon industry. When Wailin Palin says "drill baby drill" she makes it sound as if we have a say in who the carbon industry sells the product to. It's so misleading and dishonest to portray a message that We The People have some sort of control over carbon products. We have very little if any at all. It all goes on the world market where it can fetch the best price. The only carbon products the US has control over is that which the US government has purchased for reserves.

pcarson wrote:"... why do extreme environmentalists continue to say that we should ban oil and gas development in CO, PA, CA, TX, NY, IL, ect. and go completely with wind and solar when that is completely illogical?"

Ah, my friend, you are in need of information. Oil and gas drilling in Colorado is at an all-time high. "Environmental extremists" are the mainstream people who live on your street, merely asking that fracking be done in the least harmful way possible. It's not an either/or proposition. So, lay down your false straw man and address the facts that fracking emits huge amounts of methane into the atmosphere and that the slurry that comes out of the hole is loaded with carcinogens and that slurry is getting dumped or treated incompletely before being dumped into our waterways. Your children's and grandchildren's health, if not yours, is at stake.

I too wish the world was simpler. It just ain't so. The false polarization you display should be leavened by facts. Let's just tighten up the regs, at marginal cost, and not spend untold treasure down the road in treating cancer and air- and water-born contaminants. No one is saying "stop." We're saying, "just do it right the first time." We've seen this movie before. Why do you think the American nuclear industry is DOA? Because it cost us all trillions in taxes and subsidies and cleanups. All after the fact. Why not use a little adult foresight to do energy production in a responsible manner? We all pay in the end.

These are enviornmental extremists: People who are not looking for fracking to be done safely, but want it banned. They don't want the Keystone XL pipeline to be built safely; they don't want it built period. They don't want off shore oil to be drilled safely, and have put those sites completely off limits. They don't want safe nuclear power; they don't want nuclear power at all.

“I'm not a dictator.” -- Barack Obama, March 2013“As a president, I can do whatever I want.” -- Barack Obama, February 2014

ButForGraceOfGodGoI wrote:I thought the whole drumbeat in favor of fracking was to wean the U.S. off of foreign fuel. Now we're going to ship our gas to other countries? What if we Americans need it?

Not trying to be condescending but you need to understand a thing or two about carbon products. Nothing that is drilled here belongs to the the US. Carbon products only fetch a royalty fee to our gov't. Beyond that it is traded as a commodity on the world market. You nor I have any control over what the oil companies do with their carbon product that they paid rights to access and sell.

I am constently amazed at the level of misunderstanding a good percentage of American people have about the carbon industry. When Wailin Palin says "drill baby drill" she makes it sound as if we have a say in who the carbon industry sells the product to. It's so misleading and dishonest to portray a message that We The People have some sort of control over carbon products. We have very little if any at all. It all goes on the world market where it can fetch the best price. The only carbon products the US has control over is that which the US government has purchased for reserves.

ButForGraceOfGodGoI wrote:I thought the whole drumbeat in favor of fracking was to wean the U.S. off of foreign fuel. Now we're going to ship our gas to other countries? What if we Americans need it?

Not trying to be condescending but you need to understand a thing or two about carbon products. Nothing that is drilled here belongs to the the US. Carbon products only fetch a royalty fee to our gov't. Beyond that it is traded as a commodity on the world market. You nor I have any control over what the oil companies do with their carbon product that they paid rights to access and sell.

I am constently amazed at the level of misunderstanding a good percentage of American people have about the carbon industry. When Wailin Palin says "drill baby drill" she makes it sound as if we have a say in who the carbon industry sells the product to. It's so misleading and dishonest to portray a message that We The People have some sort of control over carbon products. We have very little if any at all. It all goes on the world market where it can fetch the best price. The only carbon products the US has control over is that which the US government has purchased for reserves.

That may be true, but so what? That's the way it's done for everything, not just carbon products.

Besides, the U.S. should NOT have control over it. If I want to sell something (assuming it's a legal substance) the only other person involved is the buyer. What we do is none of your, nor anyone else in the U.S.'s business.

“I'm not a dictator.” -- Barack Obama, March 2013“As a president, I can do whatever I want.” -- Barack Obama, February 2014